Canada finally reveals the results of its universal basic income experiment
-
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
- the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
- you never earn less by working harder.
That’s not to say that you can’t design a support system that doesn’t have these issues, but with UBI, they’re just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.
I don’t see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn’t it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?
The idea of UBI is a great one, and I agree with it in principle, but I have yet to run any numbers that make it viable and that is my number one issue.
I just finished an edit to my original post going into more detail with the numbers. If you have any data that can show how the money can be made so that “you never earn less by working harder” and “everyone gets an even payment” I would be really interested to see it because I have not found anything realistic.
-
But! Maybe we could not tax the rich and the money would trickle down, have you thought of that?
This calls for another study!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Testing UBI is always an excuse to avoid UBI. UBI is as obvious as slavery abolition or basic universal healthcare. You don’t need to worry about people choosing unemployment, because you just need enough HR workers to call everyone 5 times a day with awesome job offers.
City secession is probably necessary for UBI, as it can be easily implemented at city level. City politics still demanding power hierarchy as prize for politics victory makes demonic evil oppression a perpetual social feature. UBI is especially suited to cities because police, homelessness, education are in their budgets. UBI eliminates crime and homelessness. Privatizing education and daycare with stipends for children is a budget reduction, with far more likely than not higher educational achievement.
Cities typically depend on property taxes for nearly all funding. Density weighted property taxes can pay for entirety of UBI, with those living alone in large spaces subsidizing those who live in small spaces. Adding small income and sales taxes can eliminate payroll taxes. Income taxes that are equal between businesses and individuals up to say $100k, means that $100k in employment income can be tax free if it is not a deduction to businesses. Business losses can still get tax refunds. Investor income no longer getting tax breaks is justified because investor class also gets UBI. This means lower personal/business tax rates. No more need for payroll taxes. EI not needed. Either save for a rainy day, or borrow (cheaply because income to repay is assured) from future UBI. UBI replaces future retirement benefits. Sales taxes also mean lower business/personal tax rates, without caring too much who made what you are buying. But security guarantees/tributes are far cheaper than Federal fascism.
Before you worry about pig slime multimillionaires threatening to leave your city due to end of slavery, and end of zionazi warmongering fascism, know that the best places to live on the planet are those with no crime, homelessness, and great restaurants, entertainment and retail experiences made abundant because people can afford to patronize them. The Zohran in NYC should propose UBI and secession instead of hierarchy bandaids.
When Ford and Carney promise to give all of Toronto tax money to Alberta climate terrorists and Ukrainian nazis, then the power redistribution to people provided by UBI, and secession, for Toronto is necessary. Everyone is still free to donate their money to Alberta MAGA nazis, and Sarnia Ukrainians gets more influence over remaining of Canada’s devotion to a war on Russia, and Canada’s submission to US and Zionaziism is unimpeded, with Toronto residents free to donate to Israel or to a coalition willing to nuke Tel Aviv, if no multicultural singe state or 2 state implementation not immediate. Certainly, a part of Toronto tax revenue needs to be set aside for nuclear deterrents to those who would interfere with secession/UBI structure, as well as tribute to pacify nearby powers who would otherwise make such threats.
Social unity is a powerful benefit. It is far stronger with UBI, and liquid democracy easily achievable through crypto society infrastructure that already exists. Toronto secession/governance/UBI is forerunner example to make all of Canada follow. Social unity without sacrifices to MAGA/Zionism/Warmongering corruption is better social unity. Compromises to evil is by definition fascism, and theft of your wealth for evil. UBI is not theft. It is redistributive power, wealth and quality of life enhancement.
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
-
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates. UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits. As obvious examples, the basic tax exemption means rates above the exemption need to be higher to raise the same revenue as if there were no basic exemption. When investment income gets tax breaks and no payroll taxes, employment and business income needs to be taxed higher for same revenue. Lower business income tax rate? = higher employment taxes.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates.
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
-
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertion.
-
UBI means a net tax reduction, with clear quality of life improvements, as long as the obvious social spending programs are eliminated. The higher the UBI, the more programs are obvious elimination candidates.
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
UBI is simply tax credits offsetting tax debits
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
UBI always costs 0. Just net credits and debits that equal 0. Drastic discretionary budget savings means net tax cuts.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
Canada has 0 national security threats other than US. Entirety of budget’s necessity is for poverty band aids, and prosperity enhancement which includes roads. UBI replaces all poverty/redistributive programs. There is zero cost to UBI because it is not discretionary government/empire/colony funding. Just credits and debits among tax payers. Elimination of poverty programs is genuine tax reduction.
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
Including to those who pay high taxes, their spouses and adult children, reducing their effective net tax and support rate. Because people have more money, it trickles back up to the rich, such that, as always, the rich get richer even with higher tax rates, because they still have all of the wealth.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
Again, all UBI payment levels save money due to discretionary/mandatory budget reductions. Even ultra rich investor class gets it to incentivize them to have larger families. It makes society and ultra rich, richer. Latest $2B payment to Ukraine, could have been $600 to every Canadian. UBI encourages more UBI instead of waste/warmongering.
-
Just renaming Welfare to UBI. Again where is the money coming from should be answered by politicians.
Taxes on corporations and the rich, savings on overhead from existing programs that will no longer be required.
-
These studies are annoying. “Study finds if you give people money they do better in life” Wow. Such rocket science.
But for all the radical socialists trying push UBI, you will note that NONE of them want to pay for it with their tax increases (do they even pay taxes?). Which is the entire problem. There may be some savings in the system but the COST will be borne up front by the taxpaayer. And since WHEN in the history of mankind, if a gov has saved some money in other areas, have they LOWERED taxes due to the savings? Never.Therefore UBI is sever going to happen. Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks. The rest of us live in reality and are sick of our very high tax burden in Canada. So enough with the studies, kill this idea once and for all.
Because the only people who support it are students and academics and think tanks.
I own my own home, I support my wife with my single income, and we have enough savings that recently being unemployed for several months did not cause any financial hardships.
I support UBI even though I personally would not benefit from it, and I should be taxed more in order to help people who are struggling.
Not everyone operates under “fuck you I got mine”.
-
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
Canada has 0 national security threats other than US. Entirety of budget’s necessity is for poverty band aids, and prosperity enhancement which includes roads. UBI replaces all poverty/redistributive programs. There is zero cost to UBI because it is not discretionary government/empire/colony funding. Just credits and debits among tax payers. Elimination of poverty programs is genuine tax reduction.
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
Including to those who pay high taxes, their spouses and adult children, reducing their effective net tax and support rate. Because people have more money, it trickles back up to the rich, such that, as always, the rich get richer even with higher tax rates, because they still have all of the wealth.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
Again, all UBI payment levels save money due to discretionary/mandatory budget reductions. Even ultra rich investor class gets it to incentivize them to have larger families. It makes society and ultra rich, richer. Latest $2B payment to Ukraine, could have been $600 to every Canadian. UBI encourages more UBI instead of waste/warmongering.
Ah there it is. Knew you couldn’t post without somehow trying to undermine Ukraine and convincing us to stop spending on defense. (Look at their post history…)
-
If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.
Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’.
Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.
This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.
I’m not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.
Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertion.
Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.
If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.
Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.
-
To be real about it. Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month? I understand the health data portion. Question remains is it sustainable and how would it be paid for?
Who is going to say it was bad receiving extra money a month?
This guy:
-
UBI isn’t the best solution out there, it is a highly polarized idea, and funding for a program on scale would cost
trillionsBillions, requiring trillions in revenue to be a viable option.I think a better idea is a reform of taxation.
First $50,000 of income is not taxed.
$50,001-$100,000: Taxed at 15% $100,001-$500,000: Taxed at 25% $500,001-$1,000,000: Taxed at 40% $1,000,000-$10,000,000: Taxed at 50%
$10,000,001+: Taxes increase by 10% per $10,000,000 earned to a cap of 80%
This would essentially create the conditions of UBI, help to increase funding for support for those who cannot work or are unable to work full time, and the rich finally get to pay their share.
These are also really rough numbers just as an example for the idea.
Edit:
For those who do not believe that UBI is unsustainable on scale:
The idea of UBI: “Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a social welfare concept that proposes providing all citizens or residents of a particular country or region with a regular, unconditional sum of money, regardless of their income, employment status, or wealth”
There are 32,708,656 Canadians as of 2024 aged 20 or older according to population estimates.
Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender
Estimated number of persons on July 1, by 5-year age groups and gender, and median age, for Canada, provinces and territories.
(www150.statcan.gc.ca)
The 2023-2024 total revenues for Canada was $459.5 billion.
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024 - Canada.ca
Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2023-2024
(www.canada.ca)
The article cites the experiment where the participants received either $16,989 CAD/year as a single person or $24,027 CAD/year. UBI is supposed to be the same payment regardless of any status, so I am going to use the single person amount for scale.
32,708,656 * $16,989 = $555,687,356,784
$555,687,356,784 - $459,500,000,000 = $96,187,356,784
Canada would need to make almost $100 billion more in revenue every year just to cover UBI, and that does not include anything else Federal revenue is used for.
UBI is not sustainable on scale, and there are better options.
the lenghts people will go to keep capitalism.
-
Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.
If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.
Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.
Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.
“Couples should not receive less under a Universal Basic Income. The point of UBI is every individual receives the same payment regardless of their potential status’.”
If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.
Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.
“This is not UBI. The point of UBI is to be the basic income separate from working income, and not impacted by what one makes.”
Again, Feel free to provide all of your own data and analysis to demonstrate your assertions.
-
Combined, what is the total cost of all of those programs?
Canada has 0 national security threats other than US. Entirety of budget’s necessity is for poverty band aids, and prosperity enhancement which includes roads. UBI replaces all poverty/redistributive programs. There is zero cost to UBI because it is not discretionary government/empire/colony funding. Just credits and debits among tax payers. Elimination of poverty programs is genuine tax reduction.
UBI is a payment made to every eligible person, regardless of any status including wealth, every month.
Including to those who pay high taxes, their spouses and adult children, reducing their effective net tax and support rate. Because people have more money, it trickles back up to the rich, such that, as always, the rich get richer even with higher tax rates, because they still have all of the wealth.
With the numbers I ran the cost is $555,687,356,784 per year with the current population to pay for the program using the Ontario studies payment model.
Again, all UBI payment levels save money due to discretionary/mandatory budget reductions. Even ultra rich investor class gets it to incentivize them to have larger families. It makes society and ultra rich, richer. Latest $2B payment to Ukraine, could have been $600 to every Canadian. UBI encourages more UBI instead of waste/warmongering.
Take care.
-
In my opinion, the main appeal of UBI over other forms of support is that
- the absence of means testing ensures no one falls through the cracks, and
- you never earn less by working harder.
That’s not to say that you can’t design a support system that doesn’t have these issues, but with UBI, they’re just trivially non-existent. No need for extra work in figuring out how to fix these problems.
I don’t see how funding would be an issue unless you count the savings from letting people fall through the cracks. Shouldn’t it cost the same to effectively support people in need regardless of how you distribute the money?
Unless I’ve misunderstood, what OP proposed is just increasing the tax rate of the existing system.
A progressive tax doesn’t result in earning less for working harder; it’s only the marginal income that’s taxed at the higher rate. So a worker who goes from making $50,000 to $60,0000 only pays 15% tax on $10,000 and has a net take home increase of $8,500.
-
It’s a crime to not have universal basic income at this point. People aren’t only unable to afford basic living expenses, but they’re losing jobs to automation and AI already. What are these people supposed to do? Go beg on the streets?
We’re not quite there yet. Even with offsets by eliminating virtually all other social programs, including socialized healthcare, and slashing the size of military expenditures to almost nothing, doing every single good idea there is to fund it and increasing taxation on the owner class, there simply isn’t enought GDP to support it without spending your way into inflation… not unless you’re a country with a very small population rich in natural resources.
It’s plausible if we can bring the price of energy down to the point that it’s negligible and multiplies productivity almost for free.
We need scalable commercial fusion power to make it work, basically.
I agree with the goal,l. I don’t think people will contribute less without the threat of being unable to meet basic costs of living. I think a lot of people’s contributions to society aren’t adequately captured and recorded by our economic system.
But I’m not naive enough to believe that it can meet all of a person’s cost of living with current tech.
-
It’s a crime to not have universal basic income at this point. People aren’t only unable to afford basic living expenses, but they’re losing jobs to automation and AI already. What are these people supposed to do? Go beg on the streets?
No, Mr Citizen, I expect you to die.
-
I’d be happy to receive money every months that I payback in full on my tax deductions. If I suddenly stop working, the check just keep coming in. It becomes a safety net available to all, that doesn’t mean you are actually giving it to all, all the time. You can get rid of other program that become redundant. Welfare, employment insurance, hell student loans too could be splified this way.
…the
checkcheque just keep coming in.
